The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina held today its regular 117th plenary session, at which it examined appeals and requests for the review of constitutionality.
Of the decisions adopted today, the Constitutional Court singles out the following:
In the Case No. U 8/19, the Constitutional Court decided on the request of the Seven Delegates of the Council of Peoples of Republika Srpska for the review of constitutionality of Article 53 of the Law on Agricultural Land of Republika Srpska which stipulates that the agricultural land in question, which is a public good, i.e. the state property, shall become, by force of law, property and possession of the Republika Srpska. The Constitutional Court found that the challenged provision is incompatible with Article I(1), Article III(3)(b) and Article IV(4)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, since Bosnia and Herzegovina has the exclusive responsibility to regulate the issue of state property.
In the Case No. U 9/19, the Constitutional Court decided on the request of the Seven Delegates of the Council of Peoples of the Republika Srpska for the review of constitutionality of Article 2, items 11, 12, 20 and 21, Article 4, Article 6 paragraph 2, Article 8 paragraph 1 lines 1 and 2, Article 10, Article 15 paragraph 2, Article 24, Article 25 paragraph 4, Article 28 paragraph 3, Article 30 paragraph 1, Article 94 paragraph 4 and Article 95 paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Law on Inland Waterways Navigation of the Republika Srpska. The Constitutional Court found that the challenged provisions are incompatible with Article I(1), Article III(3)(b) and Article IV(4)(e) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, the issues pertaining to the navigation on interstate and international rivers, as well as the related responsibility between the State and Entity authorities, should be regulated by a law to be passed at the state level, as those issues are the exclusive responsibility of the State of BiH according to the mentioned provisions of the Constitution of BiH.
In the Case No. U 10/19, the Constitutional Court decided on the request of the Municipal Court in Cazin, Judge Erol Husic, for the review of the compatibility of Article 69 (3) and (4) of the Law on Enforcement Procedure of the FBiH. The Constitutional Court found that the challenged provision is incompatible with Article II(3)(k) of the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as it places an excessive burden on other co-owners in relation to the co-owner - enforcement debtor, whose debt is settled in the enforcement procedure by the sale of the entire property, including co-ownership portions of other co-owners, which is in contravention of the proportionality standard.
In the Case No. U 11/19, the Constitutional Court after the deliberation on the procedural issue, decided that the case will be deliberated on at one of the following sessions.
The Constitutional Court held a deliberation in the Case No. AP 1140/19, the appeal of Davor Dragičević lodged for alleged lack of effective investigation and decided to adopt a decision at one of the following sessions.
All decisions taken at the 117th plenary session are to be delivered to the appellants within one month time-limit and posted on the official website of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
